To keep information a secret, So they tell limited amount of people.
The two reasons:
- Britain intercepted the Zimmerman Telegram
- Germany resumed unrestricted submarine warfare
Context/detail:
Public outrage in the US against the Germans swept the nation following the sinking of the British ocean liner, <em>Lusitania</em> -- but that happened before 1917. When a German U-boat (submarine) sank the Lusitania in May, 1915, over 1,000 persons were killed, including more than 100 Americans. The passenger liner was targeted by the Germans because they suspected weapons were being shipped to Britain in the cargo hold of the ship.
Germany managed to stave off American entry into the war at the time by pledging to stop submarine attacks. But a couple years later they resumed such attacks, and there was also an intercepted telegram (the "Zimmerman Telegram") that showed Germany was trying to secure Mexico as an ally against the United States.
In 1917, the US declared war on Germany in response.
The Iran hostage crisis ushered in an era in which the greatest foreign policy challenges
facing the United States were the threats posed by conflicts in the Middle East. Today, the United States still finds itself facing similar threats in this region. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, diplomatic struggles with Iran, and the ongoing threat
of terrorism continue to create problems for the United States.
Answer:
Thank yo for asking this...I was waiting for someone to ask me this.
EXPLANATION: This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to prosecution in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. We consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime. We argue that personal immunity (immunity ratione personae) continues to apply even where prosecution is sought for international crimes
The appointment and confirmation of Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States involves several steps set forth by the United States Constitution, which have been further refined and developed by decades of tradition. Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate.[1] Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court.[1] The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.
Senate cloture rules historically required a two-thirds affirmative vote to advance nominations to a vote; this was changed to a three-fifths supermajority in 1975. In November 2013, the then-Democratic Senate majority eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees and judicial nominees except for Supreme Court nominees by invoking the so-called nuclear option. In April 2017, the Republican Senate majority applied the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations as well,[2] enabling the nominations of Trump nominees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to proceed to a vote.....
Hope this helps ;)
